Political Philosophies - Theories of Fundamentalism and Constitutionalism

Machiavelli's fundamentalism and Rousseau's constitutionalism are two of the great realist philosophies. The basic assumptions of realism are the core concepts for these two approaches. However, it is how these tenets are interpreted that separates fundamentalism from constitutionalism.

Fundamentalism dictates that the "state" is the governing individual. Machiavelli accepts that there are two types of states; princely and republican. He christens the former "the prince" in his book by the same name. Due to the anarchic nature of the international system and because Machiavelli believes that human nature is the root of all reason, princes are subject to their courageous ambitions, or virtú. These ambitions compel princes to "seek war and military conquest" (Doyle, 1999: 96). Contemporary fundamentalists, namely Hans Morgenthau, have connected all political actions both 'domestic and international back to basic "elemental bio-psychological" drives in human nature' (Morgenthau, in Doyle, 1999: 106).

In fundamentalism, it is believed that the leader, or prince, is the only form of morality. Though realism has no basis for it, Machiavelli suggests that it is because he is the only one who can define what is good and right for his state. Morgenthau, following in Machiavelli's lead, also has a moral purpose; a sort of "peace through accommodation" (Doyle, 1999: 106). This leads to the "fox-like" diplomacy Machivelli recommends as a quest for peace. Thus, fundamentalism can "best be understood as a[n] ... interested-oriented, power-seeking activity" (Ibid, in Doyle: 199).

The main actor in constitutionalism is the state itself. However, the state is defined by how it is structured internally; this is done by examining its national institutions. Because there are differing types of internal structure, constitutionalism assumes that states' interests vary depending upon these forms. Rousseau, however, does say that the states' general interests lay in mitigating the effects of the state of war.

For all both fundamentalism and constitutionalism, the international system is anarchic. This is because there is no governing body to patrol the actions of states. This anarchic state is in a constant state of war. Machiavelli's state of war affects traditional or conservative regimes considerably less than contemporary or progressive regimes, but does not altogether disregard the former because it was at one time in the past classified as one of the latter. He also implies that war in itself is a necessary means for protecting the state, the state being the individual ruler. Rousseau indicates a variable state of war. Similar to Machiavelli he implies that it "is an act among states from which international boundaries protect the domestic political life of a state" (Doyle, 1999: 138). His state of war is inherently unjust ...